Archived: The Lighthouse Rehabilitation Centre

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We found that the registered manager had introduced a new system for documenting the way new staff were recruited. This included an individual file for each staff member which contained all their recruitment and personal information. At the front of the file was a checklist which the home used to ensure they held the correct information for each member of staff they employed. It was now possible for the home to easily evidence that they had undertaken the correct checks prior to a person starting work at the home. This meant that people were better protected because the home ensured that only people who were safe and suitable to work with vulnerable adults were employed.

We read the care records of four people that used the service. We spoke with four members of staff and spoke with three people that used the service. We made informal observations of people being supported. We also spoke with three social care professionals who had some involvement with the support of people living in the home. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People who were using the service benefited from safe care and support, due to good decision making and appropriate management of risks to their health, welfare and safety. The service had been led effectively to manage risk and improve the quality of care provided.

However staff personnel records did not in all instances contain all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This means that some of the background checks required to be made on people before they are employed to work for the service had not been completed. This meant that people were at risk of receiving care from someone who may not be suitable to work with vulnerable adults. A compliance action has been set for this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures to do so were in place. The manager understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they had received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with the manager that staff understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person told us, "They have been fantastic. Wonderful. I've been treated like family'. Another person told us that they, '...would not change a thing', and that they, '...can't see what more they (staff) could do'.

Is the service caring?

People told us that the staff cared about them. People's privacy, dignity, independence and human rights had been promoted. The service had placed the needs, wishes, preferences and decisions of people using the service at the centre of their work. One of the people we spoke with said that staff had, '...treated me with respect', and that staff had been, '...been very caring, very kind'.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People told us they had been given the right support and had been helped in areas that were important to them. Records illustrated that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes. People were able to pursue activities of their own choosing. Social care professionals who were independent from the home and who had been involved in the placement and/or support of people using the service spoke with us. They told us that the manager and staff had shown resilience and creative thinking in supporting and meeting the needs of people using the service.

Is the service well led?

The manager had a clear understanding of the ethos of the home. Quality assurance processes were in place. We saw that people had been asked for their feedback on the service they received and that they had filled in satisfaction surveys. They confirmed they had been listened to and as a result of the survey changes to the way care plans were used had been made. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and had worked hard to fulfil these in sometimes difficult and challenging circumstances.

There had been a period of changes in management at the home. The previous registered manager left in June 2012. There had been an interim manager for a short period. The deputy manager had been in post since December 2012 and the manager since March 2013. At the time of the inspection there were 11 people living in the home. This included three people in supported living accommodation within the home.

People who used the service told us that they liked living there and that the staff were helpful and kind. We were told that people could come and go as they pleased and were supported to progress to further independence.

We saw that there were safe processes in place for the management of medicines. Staff told us that there had been improvement in staffing levels as well as in the training and support provided. Staff felt well trained to support the needs of people who used the service.

We found some new systems in place to monitor the quality of services provided and that incidents were notified to the local authority and Care Quality Commission when necessary.